From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sr@denx.de>
Received: from mo-p05-ob.rzone.de (mo-p05-ob.rzone.de [81.169.146.180])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B084DE133
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:05:50 +1000 (EST)
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PPC440EPx SDRAM width
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:05:22 +0200
References: <49F06ECC.7030904@harris.com>
	<20090423134538.GB3825@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090423134538.GB3825@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <200904231605.22912.sr@denx.de>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thursday 23 April 2009, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:36:12AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> >There is an error in the way ibm4xx_denali_fixup_memsize calculates
> >memory size.  When testing the DDR_REDUC bit, the polarity is
> >backwards.  A "1" implies 32-bit wide memory while a "0" implies
> >64-bit wide memory.
> >
> >For a 32-bit wide system, this bug causes twice the memory to be
> >reported, leading to boot failure.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco <sfalco@harris.com>
>
> So we had a previous patch for this, and a very long discussion on what the
> right solution was.  Either we never came to a resolution, or I have just
> forgotten what it was.
>
> Stefan, Valentine, do either of you remember?

Not really, sorry. Must be longer than 2 weeks ago, so it's already flushed 
from my cache. :)

> IIRC, it wasn't something 
> that effected Sequoia or Rainier, but it could (and obviously does) effect
> custom boards.  I don't remember what we agreed on for the proper fix.

It would effect all 32-bit wide 440EPx/GRx boards using the boot wrapper. I 
never used the wrapper on those platforms though. Sorry, I don't remember the 
outcome of the discussion either.

Thanks,
Stefan